| From: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Costin Oproiu <co(at)deuroconsult(dot)ro> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Some performance issues (since everybody is testing ... :) |
| Date: | 1998-02-06 15:39:14 |
| Message-ID: | 34DB2EA2.9C8F0A1D@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I am starting with the conclusions to spare time:
> - persistent connections invention stands somewhere between the fire and the
> wheel
> - unix sockets is not much compared to tcpip (at least on my Linux 2.0.30
> box).
> - parsing and executing a trivial "select 17;" accounts for a lot of time,
> someone wanted hints on what is critical, profiler statistics coroborated.
>
> Stressing postmaster with 100 connections
Hi. Since you are testing with multiple connections, would you like to try additional testing to make sure the new deadlock
detection code behaves properly, especially under heavy load/multiple connections?
The large loading cases tend not to get exercised in beta testing because the systems are not in production yet...
- Tom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-02-06 15:53:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug? |
| Previous Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-02-06 15:30:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] is Postgres an SQL-based database? |